Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator, AK Registration No. AK3565AN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA KANAWAY SEAFOODS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 3:22-cv-00027-SLG-KFR PACIFIC PREDATOR, et al., Defendants.

ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court at Docket 204 is a Motion to Amend Counterclaims to Add Breach of Contract Claim for Second Liberty Packing Promissory Note filed by Defendants Bryan Howey, Dana Howey, and Alaska Wild Exports, LLC. Plaintiffs Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., doing business as Alaska General Seafoods, and Liberty Packing, LLC responded in opposition at Docket 210. The motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 216, Judge Reardon issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the motion be denied. Defendants filed objections to the Report and Recommendation at Docket 217, to which Plaintiffs replied at Docket 218.

The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”1 A court is to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”2 However, § 636(b)(1) does not “require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”3 The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion to Amend Counterclaims. In their objections, Defendants state that they “do not appeal” from the Report insofar as it recommended the denial of Defendants’ motion to amend their counterclaims. They do assert a concern “that the Court may bar questioning regarding corporate practices” with respect to the Second LP Promissory Note” and bar questioning as to “why Plaintiffs intentionally excluded the note from its complaint.” Those issues are not before the Court at this time.

The Court intends by separate order to schedule a trial setting conference, and thereafter, will issue a deadline for the parties to file motions in limine that can address anticipated evidentiary issues at trial.

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, and

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2 Id. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Counterclaims at Docket 204 is DENIED. Further, Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees incurred in preparing their response to the objections is DENIED.

DATED this 3rd day of December 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE